so the supreme court handed down some rulings today that made me pretty happy...you should read the opinions on Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rasul v. Bush, and Rumsfeld v. Padilla...

the gist:
you cant hold US citizens as enemy combatants without giving them a chance to contest their status as an EC. The US courts have juristiction anywhere the US has control (like control enough to put people in jail), so you cant just call "cuba" and get off the hook. and the Padilla case didnt grant his writ on the technicality that it was filed with the wrong respondants, they went on for a good long bit about this, but I thinkt he Hamdi verdict pretty much got what he wanted anyways...

of special note is Scalia's dissenting opinion on the Hamdi case, I didnt read it all but what I read sounded like a verbal news paper smacking the bush administration on its nose...he pretty much seemed to make the point that unless congress has invoked its suspention clause (where in special war times it can suspend habias corpus) then there is no legal authority to hold any citizen without formal charges and a trial...he then goes on to pretty much say we're probably violating the Geneva convention...its worth a glance at least...

for the lazy you can read about it here:

http://news.google.com/url?ntc=0MZC0&q=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11657-2004Jun28.html

--Abaddon

Supreme Court Rulings on Enemy Combatants